Government agencies are known for many things, but generally speaking a willingness to do some voluntary, deep self-examination is not one of them. However, for the last few weeks CIRM has been doing a lot of introspection as we develop a new Strategic Plan, a kind of road map for where we are heading.
But we haven’t been alone. We’ve gone to San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco to talk to Patient Advocates in each city, to get their thoughts on what we need to focus on for the future. Why Patient Advocates? Because they are the ones with most skin in the game. They are why we do this work so it’s important they have a say in how we do it.
As Chris Stiehl, a Patient Advocate for type 1 diabetes, said in San Diego: “Let the patient be in the room, let them be part of the conversation about these therapies. They are the ones in need, so let them help make decisions about them right from the start, not at the end.”
A Strategic Plan is, on the surface, a pretty straightforward thing to put together. You look at where you are, identify where you want to go, and figure out the best way to get from here to there. But as with many things, what seems simple on the surface often turns out to be a lot more complicated when looked at in more depth.
The second bit, figuring out where you want to go, is easy. We want to live up to our mission of accelerating the development of stem cells therapies to patients with unmet medical needs. We don’t want to be good at this. We want to be great at this.
The first part, seeing where you are, is a little tougher: it involves what our President and CEO, Dr. Randy Mills, “confronting some brutal facts”, being really honest in assessing where you are because without that honesty you can’t achieve anything.
So where are we as an agency? Well, we have close to one billion dollars left in the bank, we have 12 projects in clinical trials and more on the way, we have helped advance stem cells from a fledgling field to a science on the brink of what we hope will be some remarkable treatments, and we have a remarkable team ready to help drive the field still further.
But how do we do that, how do we identify the third part of the puzzle, getting from where we are to where we want to be? CIRM 2.0 is part of the answer – developing a process to fund research that is easier, faster and more responsive to the needs of the scientists and companies developing new therapies. But that’s just part of the answer.
Some of the Patient Advocates asked if we considered focusing on just a few diseases, such as the ten largest killers of Americans, and devoting our remaining resources to fixing them. And the answer is yes, we looked at every single option. But we quickly decided against that because, as Randy Mills said:
“This is not a popularity contest, you can’t judge need by numbers, deciding the worth of something by how many people have it. We are disease agnostic. What we do is find the best science, and fund it.”
Another necessary element is developing better ways to attract greater investment from big pharmaceutical companies and venture capital to really help move the most promising projects through clinical trials and into patients. That is starting to happen, not as fast as we would like, but as our blog yesterday shows things are moving in this direction.
And the third piece of the pie is getting these treatments through the regulatory process, getting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve therapies for clinical trials. And this last piece clearly hit a nerve.
Many Patient Advocates expressed frustration at the slow pace of approval for any therapy by the FDA, some saying it felt like they just kept piling up obstacles in the way.
Dr. Mills said the FDA is caught between a rock and a hard place; criticized if it approves too slowly and chastised if it approves too fast, green lighting a therapy that later proves to have problems. But he agreed that changes are needed:
“The regulatory framework works well for things like drugs and small molecules that can be taken in pills but it doesn’t work well for cellular therapies like stem cells. It needs to do better at that.”
One Advocate suggested a Boot Camp for researchers, drilling them in the skills they’ll need to get FDA approval. Others suggested applying political pressure from Patient Advocacy groups to push for change.
As always there are no easy answers, but the meeting certainly raised many great questions. Those are all helping us focus our thinking on what needs to be in the Strategic Plan.
Randy ended the Patient Advocate events by saying the stem cell agency “is in the time business. What we do is time sensitive.” For too many people that time is already running out. We have to do everything we can to change that.